Report is that the officer in the most recent killing of Daunte Wright, 20, in Minnesota thought she pulled her taser, but it was her gun.
Tasers
Pistols: Sig Sauer, Glock 19 and Glock Gen 4
That’s like the differences in media interpretations of people in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in Louisiana, 2005.
The caption of photos/videos showing a large group Black people entering flooded stores and removing merchandise identified them as “looters”. The caption of photos/videos showing a large group White people entering flooded stores and removing merchandise identified them as “survivors seeking supplies”.
Stu, Stu, Stu.
I’m confused. Just days ago, you stated (paraphrased):
“I find it difficult to dislike anything about anyone I don't know personally.”
And:
“But rather than personalize it in a judgmental way, I just remain neutral.”
Now, however, you apparently have absolutely no problem with doing exactly that which you claim you don’t do, or don’t like to do. I wonder why and/or how your personal ethics seem to shift when the subjects are not Hollywood elites but, as you found necessary to point out in the case of Daunte Wright, the 20-year-old who was killed by the Minnesota police officer who used a pistol instead of a Taser, “But how stereotypical is it that this scared and vulnerable citizen barely out of his teens was already a father? Not that relevant here, but interesting.”
And:
“But it happens disproportionately among the poor and less educated.”
Does this mean, by your own stated criteria, that you knew Daunte Wright personally, giving you the self-stated right to disparage him on points that in no way pertain to the facts around his death? Where is your neutrality now? Where is your reservation against disliking anything about someone you don’t know personally? [Before you try to wiggle your way out of that one, your dislike of Wright’s fatherhood at a young age is glaring in your statement, so please don’t try to pass it off as anything other than you looking down your nose at him.] It sure seems from my perspective that you espouse a conveniently hypocritical stance, but then again, since I don’t know you personally, I have no right to recognize blatant and obvious contradictions when they are laid out before me.
~
I’m way ahead of you on that one; I anticipated that you’d try to play the innocent role, which is why I included this above: [Before you try to wiggle your way out of that one, your dislike of Wright’s fatherhood at a young age is glaring in your statement, so please don’t try to pass it off as anything other than you looking down your nose at him.]
Your comments about him were not praise, not uplifting, not meant to be positive in any way, shape, or form, quite the opposite, they indicate your distain for him, your disagreement with how he has conducted himself in life, bordering on the holier-than-thou mentality, looking down from your ivory tower at the unwashed masses mongering in the gutters below you. You cannot pass them off as mere observations of facts, because had that been the case, there are positive facts that occurred in his life along with the negative ones. You choose to bring up negative ones. Furthermore, there was no valid reason to throw him under the bus for being a father already at the age of twenty. How does it fit into the conversation other than another element to show that he was not making life choices that you consider to be on a correct path?
Some may fold under your subterfuge of “where did I say I disliked him”, I’m not that naïve. Your hauntiness is palpable in your words. It’s an insult to anyone’s intelligence for you to pretend that they’re either benign or mere factiods.
Words have meaning, and even if your supposed intent was to bolster Wright in any way (laughable in its implausibility), that’s not the way your words came off.
I have not told you that you either know a particular thing or do not know a particular thing, don’t tell me that I know something just because you believe it to be true. It is not a fact that I know your words were not against him personally, that’s just more smoke and mirrors on your part as you don your halo and wings in self righteousness. What I do know is that your comments arose from the conversation about Wright and included his life circumstances, even when phrased as a generality about people in those circumstances, you can’t escape or lie or pretend that you are doing anything other than referring to him. It most certainly is something against him, it is not a favorable statement at all.
It’s ludicrous to say that I am not a judge, yet you used judgement in determining your opinion of Wright. Don’t misunderstand my position as being the “we should never judge others” or “being judgmental is wrong”, because that’s not what I’m stating. Humans use judgement of others every single day in many types of ways, both positive and negative. Case in point, in your judgment of what I’ve written here, I am wrong. That can’t be ignored or successfully argued as being incorrect, inaccurate. As such, judgement of others is not the issue here. The issue is you saying that I’m not a judge. If you have the right to form an opinion of something that I write, then you is it wrong for me to form an opinion of something that you have written? You judged, it’s fine. I judged, and I’m wrong. More of your hypocrisy has just been pointed out to you, you may not have realized it without having it splayed open for you, so chew on it a while before climbing back on your throne.
You don’t owe me any explanation, that’s true. I exposed your two-way road of thinking, backed you into a corner about it, you realize you’re caught, and resort to the mum‘s-the-word surrender. A simple question about movie performers and you’re too good to say anyone has ever done poorly on a film because you don’t know them personally, butter wouldn’t melt in your mouth. A 20-year-old Black man with sagging pants, a criminal history, an inability or unwillingness to obey police officers gets shot and killed by them, and you pipe up that he fathered a child at an early age.
Your comparisons of socioeconomics as part of the conversation about police officers killing minorities reeks of your elitism.
It’s quite telling that you protest so strongly (and continually) on the side of people who take lives as opposed to standing up for a life that is lost.
:(
It’s truly a shame that you don’t even realize what you’ve just written. You probably assume you’re correct, but you’re not. You’re as wrong as a person can be.
You’ve since edited your original comment:
”Yes. I will generally side with the police against a criminal 99.9% of the time.”
I have copies copied it here so that my reply above will not seem out of context.
SpunkySenior 